Santander free forever bank account changes

Section62

singhini said:

ElDickster said:

Section62 said:

ElDickster said:

Hello all, and thanks to whoever set this thread up. It's been useful for advice, as having had one of the letters about them reneging on my 'free forever' account I realised I'm not on my own.

Anyway, has anyone had a response to their complaint yet? I lodged mine two and a half weeks ago but haven't heard back yet. Also, I the fella I spoke to gave me a Dissatisfaction Case number. Is this different to an actual complaint, or just marketing-speak (to make it sound nicer)? I may have to chase them up, but can't face sitting on hold for another half an hour (I'm running a business! I'm busy!). Can I go into a branch to check?

Thanks again, and good luck to everyone!

A 'dissatisfaction' probably isn't being treated as a complaint.  There's a chance they have just noted it and closed it.  They have 8 weeks to deal with a complaint, so it is also possible they are still working on yours.

I would contact them to confirm, and if necessary make a new complaint - including (if necessary) that you wanted to make a formal complaint and they instead logged it as a 'dissatisfaction' without explaining the difference (obviously, only if that is true).

You can make a complaint in branch... but knowing Santander they might say you need an appointment and you'll have to come back another day.

Complaints by phone tend to be the best, because the complaint handler might be able to deal with the complaint then and there (by not upholding it) and so you'll get your 'final response letter' within a few days.  I think the branch would just log your complaint on the system and it would then sit there waiting your turn.

Make a note of the time you've spent and any call costs, as you can ask FOS to consider these as part of your complaint.

Thanks very much. I'l bite the bullet and ring them asap. They didn't explain the difference between a complaint and a Dissatisfaction Case, so I'll bring this up with them.
Have a nice Sunday!

When you bring it up with them, can you report back on here and lets us know if there is an actual difference please. 

Looking at FCA handbook and in particular complaints it reads "any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction................" 

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G197.html

It would be nice to know if there are two difference case types of if its sll just the same thing.

I agree, which is why I suggested ElDickster make it a specific part of their complaint.  I've not found anything so far which allows a 'dissatisfaction' to be treated as a non-complaint.

eskbanker

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

Which post-2015 regulations are you specifically thinking of, that mention "surprising"?

I actually said may have been post-2015. In fact, checking dates the relevant legislation came out the same year: Conumer Rights Act (2015)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf

Clause 20: "....If a term could come as a surprise to the consumer, it will require more effort to ensure its prominence compared to other terms (and this applies not only in the contract but to all pre-contract information, for example brochures or webpages)"

That's a guidance document rather than the legislation itself, but CRA's unfair terms provisions were largely carried over from previous legislation, namely the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, so a proper legal challenge to Santander's actions may need to factor those in too, given that their 2015 changes predated CRA.

There's also the question of whether omission of a term would be regarded in the same way, i.e. the crux of this issue is the post-2015 absence of the promise to retain free banking, rather than the ongoing presence of an unfair term as such.

I don't see any real distinction between the Act and the (Legislator's own) guidance on how the Act should be intepreted in practice. The fact remains that any content in a contract that would come as a surprise to a reasonable person should be adequately brought to the consumer's attention.

I think it would come as big surprise to most customers that the terms of the 2015 contract allow the bank to fundamentally change the banking relationship i.e break a lifetime promise and end free banking. This should have adequately been brought to customers' attention. In fact, it wasn't brought to their attention at all. 

It is those very terms that Santander are now using to justify ending free banking*

So, to return to my original argument, their failure to adequately explain those terms in respect of the implication for free banking, invalidates their justification.

*https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners  

It still doesn't seem a tenable argument to me to try to apply unfair terms legislation to compare one contract with another, in that my understanding is that such legislation is intended to be construed on a standalone basis, i.e. are the terms of a contract as stated fair, rather than is it fair that something could be said to be missing by reference to a different contract?

In any case, was the free banking promise expressly encapsulated within the terms of the previous contract anyway?  I'm conscious that there is the wider interpretation of contract, including implied terms and those stated in advertising, etc, but that returns the debate to the discussion about whether the contract relates to the individual or the account, although it seems clear from Santander's comments in that Grauniad piece that they're relying on new contracts applying to the accounts in use from 2015.

It still seems to me that it'll be more productive to construct a case around FCA requirements for fairness and transparency, rather than trying to contrive something from unfair terms provisions within generic consumer rights legislation....

solidpro

I submitted a complaint via post and emailed the CEO of Santander with my issues. I recieved this via post.

"we are no longer offering your current account type" is hogwash.

IanManc

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

Which post-2015 regulations are you specifically thinking of, that mention "surprising"?

I actually said may have been post-2015. In fact, checking dates the relevant legislation came out the same year: Conumer Rights Act (2015)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf

Clause 20: "....If a term could come as a surprise to the consumer, it will require more effort to ensure its prominence compared to other terms (and this applies not only in the contract but to all pre-contract information, for example brochures or webpages)"

That's a guidance document rather than the legislation itself, but CRA's unfair terms provisions were largely carried over from previous legislation, namely the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, so a proper legal challenge to Santander's actions may need to factor those in too, given that their 2015 changes predated CRA.

There's also the question of whether omission of a term would be regarded in the same way, i.e. the crux of this issue is the post-2015 absence of the promise to retain free banking, rather than the ongoing presence of an unfair term as such.

I don't see any real distinction between the Act and the (Legislator's own) guidance on how the Act should be intepreted in practice. The fact remains that any content in a contract that would come as a surprise to a reasonable person should be adequately brought to the consumer's attention.

I think it would come as big surprise to most customers that the terms of the 2015 contract allow the bank to fundamentally change the banking relationship i.e break a lifetime promise and end free banking. This should have adequately been brought to customers' attention. In fact, it wasn't brought to their attention at all. 

It is those very terms that Santander are now using to justify ending free banking*

So, to return to my original argument, their failure to adequately explain those terms in respect of the implication for free banking, invalidates their justification.

*https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners  

It still doesn't seem a tenable argument to me to try to apply unfair terms legislation to compare one contract with another, in that my understanding is that such legislation is intended to be construed on a standalone basis, i.e. are the terms of a contract as stated fair, rather than is it fair that something could be said to be missing by reference to a different contract?

In any case, was the free banking promise expressly encapsulated within the terms of the previous contract anyway?  I'm conscious that there is the wider interpretation of contract, including implied terms and those stated in advertising, etc, but that returns the debate to the discussion about whether the contract relates to the individual or the account, although it seems clear from Santander's comments in that Grauniad piece that they're relying on new contracts applying to the accounts in use from 2015.

It still seems to me that it'll be more productive to construct a case around FCA requirements for fairness and transparency, rather than trying to contrive something from unfair terms provisions within generic consumer rights legislation....

I'm usually really wary about commenting on this sort of thing on the forum, because invariably someone who knows absolutely nothing about law immediately wades in and pontificates that I'm talking rubbish. Anyway .....

There are two issues of contract law which might provide a relevant argument.

Firstly, is the term relating to free banking forever something which is fundamental to the contract?

Seeing it was unusual at the time and heavily promoted as the most significant feature of the account, I think it is very likely to be fundamental to the contract.

Secondly, if it is fundamental, then for the term to be changed both parties would have to agree. That agreement would have to be an informed agreement on both sides, with full understanding of the consequences of the variation.

So it couldn't be done - and be valid and effective - as a change in terms by a process such as, for example, of sending notices of new terms and failing to clearly and explicitly highlight the new term and explain all the potential consequences of it; or by saying that if people didn't like it they could close their accounts and if they didn't close them they'd be "deemed" to have accepted it.

In other words, it would need positive informed agreement and acceptance, rather than passive - and possibly uninformed - presumed acceptance. 

These are points of basic contract law rather than consumer rights legislation.

solidpro

I really think if they're looking to rely on "we are no longer offering your current account type" and with the original contract I had with Santander being for a business banking current account and the original contract headline across 3 pages of A4 being 'free business banking forever', they surely must have something else up their sleeve?

eskbanker

IanManc said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

Which post-2015 regulations are you specifically thinking of, that mention "surprising"?

I actually said may have been post-2015. In fact, checking dates the relevant legislation came out the same year: Conumer Rights Act (2015)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf

Clause 20: "....If a term could come as a surprise to the consumer, it will require more effort to ensure its prominence compared to other terms (and this applies not only in the contract but to all pre-contract information, for example brochures or webpages)"

That's a guidance document rather than the legislation itself, but CRA's unfair terms provisions were largely carried over from previous legislation, namely the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, so a proper legal challenge to Santander's actions may need to factor those in too, given that their 2015 changes predated CRA.

There's also the question of whether omission of a term would be regarded in the same way, i.e. the crux of this issue is the post-2015 absence of the promise to retain free banking, rather than the ongoing presence of an unfair term as such.

I don't see any real distinction between the Act and the (Legislator's own) guidance on how the Act should be intepreted in practice. The fact remains that any content in a contract that would come as a surprise to a reasonable person should be adequately brought to the consumer's attention.

I think it would come as big surprise to most customers that the terms of the 2015 contract allow the bank to fundamentally change the banking relationship i.e break a lifetime promise and end free banking. This should have adequately been brought to customers' attention. In fact, it wasn't brought to their attention at all. 

It is those very terms that Santander are now using to justify ending free banking*

So, to return to my original argument, their failure to adequately explain those terms in respect of the implication for free banking, invalidates their justification.

*https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners  

It still doesn't seem a tenable argument to me to try to apply unfair terms legislation to compare one contract with another, in that my understanding is that such legislation is intended to be construed on a standalone basis, i.e. are the terms of a contract as stated fair, rather than is it fair that something could be said to be missing by reference to a different contract?

In any case, was the free banking promise expressly encapsulated within the terms of the previous contract anyway?  I'm conscious that there is the wider interpretation of contract, including implied terms and those stated in advertising, etc, but that returns the debate to the discussion about whether the contract relates to the individual or the account, although it seems clear from Santander's comments in that Grauniad piece that they're relying on new contracts applying to the accounts in use from 2015.

It still seems to me that it'll be more productive to construct a case around FCA requirements for fairness and transparency, rather than trying to contrive something from unfair terms provisions within generic consumer rights legislation....

I'm usually really wary about commenting on this sort of thing on the forum, because invariably someone who knows absolutely nothing about law immediately wades in and pontificates that I'm talking rubbish. Anyway .....

There are two issues of contract law which might provide a relevant argument.

Firstly, is the term relating to free banking forever something which is fundamental to the contract?

Seeing it was unusual at the time and heavily promoted as the most significant feature of the account, I think it is very likely to be fundamental to the contract.

Secondly, if it is fundamental, then for the term to be changed both parties would have to agree. That agreement would have to be an informed agreement on both sides, with full understanding of the consequences of the variation.

So it couldn't be done - and be valid and effective - as a change in terms by a process such as, for example, of sending notices of new terms and failing to clearly and explicitly highlight the new term and explain all the potential consequences of it; or by saying that if people didn't like it they could close their accounts and if they didn't close them they'd be "deemed" to have accepted it.

In other words, it would need positive informed agreement and acceptance, rather than passive - and possibly uninformed - presumed acceptance. 

These are points of basic contract law rather than consumer rights legislation.

But surely that again comes back to the critical issue of whether the pre-2015 contract was varied or replaced by an entirely new one for a different product, Santander's view clearly being the latter (similar to what they've expressed in the 'like it or lump it' letter shared above)?  Most bank account Ts & Cs allow either party to terminate the agreement for convenience - it would unsurprisingly be seen as cynical for Santander to withdraw a product they advertised as 'free forever', but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unlawful to do so or that they're obliged to compensate affected customers.

Having said that, I'm not trying to assert that there isn't a contract law argument here - I was simply clarifying that, as I see it, the breach of FCA obligations seems a more likely avenue than seeking to claim that there's an actionable breach of unfair terms provisions in consumer rights legislation.  I know nothing of the legal credentials of you or other posters on here but am happy to concede that I'm not a lawyer (or a Santander employee)!

IanManc

eskbanker said:

IanManc said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

drphila said:

eskbanker said:

Which post-2015 regulations are you specifically thinking of, that mention "surprising"?

I actually said may have been post-2015. In fact, checking dates the relevant legislation came out the same year: Conumer Rights Act (2015)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf

Clause 20: "....If a term could come as a surprise to the consumer, it will require more effort to ensure its prominence compared to other terms (and this applies not only in the contract but to all pre-contract information, for example brochures or webpages)"

That's a guidance document rather than the legislation itself, but CRA's unfair terms provisions were largely carried over from previous legislation, namely the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, so a proper legal challenge to Santander's actions may need to factor those in too, given that their 2015 changes predated CRA.

There's also the question of whether omission of a term would be regarded in the same way, i.e. the crux of this issue is the post-2015 absence of the promise to retain free banking, rather than the ongoing presence of an unfair term as such.

I don't see any real distinction between the Act and the (Legislator's own) guidance on how the Act should be intepreted in practice. The fact remains that any content in a contract that would come as a surprise to a reasonable person should be adequately brought to the consumer's attention.

I think it would come as big surprise to most customers that the terms of the 2015 contract allow the bank to fundamentally change the banking relationship i.e break a lifetime promise and end free banking. This should have adequately been brought to customers' attention. In fact, it wasn't brought to their attention at all. 

It is those very terms that Santander are now using to justify ending free banking*

So, to return to my original argument, their failure to adequately explain those terms in respect of the implication for free banking, invalidates their justification.

*https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners  

It still doesn't seem a tenable argument to me to try to apply unfair terms legislation to compare one contract with another, in that my understanding is that such legislation is intended to be construed on a standalone basis, i.e. are the terms of a contract as stated fair, rather than is it fair that something could be said to be missing by reference to a different contract?

In any case, was the free banking promise expressly encapsulated within the terms of the previous contract anyway?  I'm conscious that there is the wider interpretation of contract, including implied terms and those stated in advertising, etc, but that returns the debate to the discussion about whether the contract relates to the individual or the account, although it seems clear from Santander's comments in that Grauniad piece that they're relying on new contracts applying to the accounts in use from 2015.

It still seems to me that it'll be more productive to construct a case around FCA requirements for fairness and transparency, rather than trying to contrive something from unfair terms provisions within generic consumer rights legislation....

I'm usually really wary about commenting on this sort of thing on the forum, because invariably someone who knows absolutely nothing about law immediately wades in and pontificates that I'm talking rubbish. Anyway .....

There are two issues of contract law which might provide a relevant argument.

Firstly, is the term relating to free banking forever something which is fundamental to the contract?

Seeing it was unusual at the time and heavily promoted as the most significant feature of the account, I think it is very likely to be fundamental to the contract.

Secondly, if it is fundamental, then for the term to be changed both parties would have to agree. That agreement would have to be an informed agreement on both sides, with full understanding of the consequences of the variation.

So it couldn't be done - and be valid and effective - as a change in terms by a process such as, for example, of sending notices of new terms and failing to clearly and explicitly highlight the new term and explain all the potential consequences of it; or by saying that if people didn't like it they could close their accounts and if they didn't close them they'd be "deemed" to have accepted it.

In other words, it would need positive informed agreement and acceptance, rather than passive - and possibly uninformed - presumed acceptance. 

These are points of basic contract law rather than consumer rights legislation.

But surely that again comes back to the critical issue of whether the pre-2015 contract was varied or replaced by an entirely new one for a different product, Santander's view clearly being the latter (similar to what they've expressed in the 'like it or lump it' letter shared above)?  Most bank account Ts & Cs allow either party to terminate the agreement for convenience - it would unsurprisingly be seen as cynical for Santander to withdraw a product they advertised as 'free forever', but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unlawful to do so or that they're obliged to compensate affected customers.

Having said that, I'm not trying to assert that there isn't a contract law argument here - I was simply clarifying that, as I see it, the breach of FCA obligations seems a more likely avenue than seeking to claim that there's an actionable breach of unfair terms provisions in consumer rights legislation.  I know nothing of the legal credentials of you or other posters on here but am happy to concede that I'm not a lawyer (or a Santander employee)!

I think there's a contract law argument to be made, as I outlined. And there's no reason why an argument asserting breach of FCA obligations can't be put forward as well. Like you, I'm unconvinced by an unfair contract terms argument based on consumer legislation. If the basic contract law argument is valid though then any purported change to the contract in 2015 would be invalid and have no effect.

Santander are trying try rely on their supposed right to withdraw a particular account, but they appear to have a contract to provide free business banking "for ever" whatever they feel like calling the account at any particular time; and they may be found to be in a position where they're contractually bound to carry on providing free business banking until both parties freely decide to end the contract. Santander are asserting that they have the right to do that unilaterally, and I'm suggesting a cogent argument can be made that they are wrong.

And to be clear, I really hope Santander lose. I think they're trying it on.

solidpro

Does anyone actually remember the change I'm supposedly supposed to have agreed to back in either 2012 or 2015 when they backtracked on this previously? They seem to be saying I agreed to some new terms and conditions at some point between opening the account and now, when I don't remember signing or agreeing to any changes in between....?

Just trying to get my ducks in a row before complaining to the FOS.

solidpro

For what it's worth, I also recieved this response from my MP:

"Thank you for taking the time to raise this important issue. I can only imagine how deeply frustrating it must feel to have opened a business account based on clear “Free Forever” or “Free for Life” branding, only now to be informed that a £9.99 monthly fee will be imposed starting this October. I completely understand why you are frustrated and feel mislead.

By coincidence, I have a meeting with Santander scheduled next week, and I will raise this issue directly with them if time allows. Unfortunately, MP’s cannot get involved in legal disputes, so my options for intervention is quite limited – but I would be happy to take this information to the meeting with me and try and gather some clarifications from Santander. "

irritated_tyke

IanManc said:

I think there's a contract law argument to be made, as I outlined. And there's no reason why an argument asserting breach of FCA obligations can't be put forward as well. Like you, I'm unconvinced by an unfair contract terms argument based on consumer legislation. If the basic contract law argument is valid though then any purported change to the contract in 2015 would be invalid and have no effect.

Santander are trying try rely on their supposed right to withdraw a particular account, but they appear to have a contract to provide free business banking "for ever" whatever they feel like calling the account at any particular time; and they may be found to be in a position where they're contractually bound to carry on providing free business banking until both parties freely decide to end the contract. Santander are asserting that they have the right to do that unilaterally, and I'm suggesting a cogent argument can be made that they are wrong.

This is close to my thinking on this.

Namely that this is basic contract law but the FCA 2023 Consumer Duty requirements also being applicable to SMEs might be helpful.

The "Free Banking Forever" was fundamental to my understanding of the contract when it was set up. There was already at that time (2002) a condition that allowed changes with notice but as that would make a nonsense of "Free Banking Forever" if it could be construed as overriding it, I understood it to apply to the other General Terms and Conditions. 

Santander's seeking to rely on the 2015 version of the condition that allows them to replace one named product with a differently named product, conveniently (for them) overlooks the fact that the original offer applied to  "Business Banking Services" and included Current Account, Reserve Account, Client Account and Client Reserve Account.

Just because banking fashions have changed over time and banks now offer a range of current accounts with minor differences for marketing purposes, does not relieve them of their contractual obligation to provide the core banking services related to the above four account types "Free Forever" (the 'If it looks like a duck' test). For me, the only get-out they have is if they cease to offer those account types completely.

I submitted a complaint on behalf of our business by post -- they should have received it a week ago but I've not had the requested acknowledgement or a response yet and I'm not expecting anything remotely sensible given what others have already had.